[Scott_Burroughs]

Gil Hanse's Boston Golf Club has a pretty small green on the short (~300yds) 5th. I applaud Hanse for including such a controversial quality.
[img ]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/foodstat/Boston%20GC/mypics/b05c.jpg

I think you mean:

[James Bennett]

Scott

that green instantly reminded me of #4 at Woodlands in Melbourne - a very short par 4 (about 260 yards I think) but with a very small green.  It has not bunkers, so the whole green (what there is of it) is useable.  Steep fallaways on the left and right sides, and an elevated front.  (I think there is only one way that the surrounds of the green can be mown, because of the slope).

A green can be quite small (less than 300 sq metres, or 3000 sq feet) if it is not under pressure from either:
a) a single walk-off area to the enxt tee, which concentrates wear;
b) bunkers cut very close to the green, resulting in sand splash damage on a small green;
c) any severe slope or spine which reduces the pinnable area; and
d) the availability of light and air must be as good as possible, to enable the turf to survive the higher concentration of usage.

The thing about Woodland's small green on #4 is that it passes all three elements.

At my home club, we have several small greens at around 300sq metres.  Those that pass the tests above are fine.  Those that don't (eg bunkers in very close proximity, single walk-offs to the next green, some deterioration in light to the green) are constant maintenance challenges.

James B

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff:  Only some things are larger in Texas. Greens may be one of them. I have not created a 2000 s.f. green since my first "mistake"...but it is tempting.

What happens when the green shrinks? NO GREEN! Now...that is a concept worth exploring!

[Scott_Burroughs]

Here's the narrow 4th at my home course, Wake Forest GC,
just 9 paces wide in the front 2/3 section.  This hole is not
part of the original design and doesn't fit with the rest of the
course (along with the housing that borders the 2 1/2 new
holes put in in the late 80's).



Here are a few more views of greens previously shown.

Approach to #4 at Spyglass:



the fallaway green:


#15 at Fenway from head on:



from behind (shows how narrow that front section is):

[Jeff_Brauer]

Besides overall size, a green less than 40 feet wide, in my experience, gets far too much wear in the middle for a good putting surface.  There just isn't enough room to move the pin side to side.

While I love Spyglass 4, having hit one of my all time career controlled draws to the back pin, I am not sure I would make one that narrow in any dimension.

Superintendents around here, BTW, often combat heat stress by putting pins near the edge of the green, and especially near the cart path edge, on tough days, to reduce the amount of walking around the green.

[Mike Hendren]

Scott,

Thank you for those additional Fenway photographs.  

Is the 5th at Boston Golf Club approached from the left of the photograph?  If so, I'd welcome any insight into that kick-plate behind the golfer on the left.  I assume it is intended to propel an approach over the green and encourage a drive down the right-hand side of the fairway to better approach a back-left pin?  

Mike

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I love small greens of short par 4's and 3's. 4 at Spyglass and 15 at Fenway are great great holes because of their green complexes. Jeff makes valid points and for the most part I feel these types of greens are better suited to Private clubs with limited play. Yet, Spyglass must get as much play as the top 10% of courses in America. So bring them on, the more great small greens of creative short par 4's the better.

[Jordan Wall]

Though I am an OK golfer I really think green size doesnt matter all that much, at least most of the time.  I mean, if I am missing 10,000 plus sq. ft greens it wouldnt really matter if the green was 1,000sq. ft or 10,000

[Doug Siebert]

Dunno about that Jordan.  The cow pasture courses in the midwest often are all greens in the 700-1200 sq ft range that basically took those old 30-40' diameter sand greens and grassed them without making them bigger.  If you miss one of them when its dry out, your ball bounces like it hit a cartpath and might end up 40-50 yards away if you tried to fly it in.  Your work ain't over yet from there, so don't sell the small greens short for the ability to drive you insane!

Plus like all the archies and greenskeepers are pointing out, wear patterns are terrible on greens that small, so don't go assuming that because you got it to 3' that can make the putt!

I don't play those courses often, and usually only as a way to try to work out kinks in my driver and/or wedges.  But it really messes with your head to play a course that barely manages to measure 6000 yards, is dry as a bone so the ball runs forever, and has few hazards, little or no rough and occasional single rows of junky trees to define playing corridors and yet a 5 handicap still has one hell of a time breaking par!  Put normal well maintained 4000 sq ft greens on those courses and they are a half dozen strokes easier, at least.

Oh yeah, did I mention they are often push up greens as well?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()